Hi, On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:17:44PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > Does your new tetex-texmf obsolete tetex-afm and tetex-latex? Yes, it does. On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 10:47:20PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > I am packaging tetex 2.0 since its early beta stages. tetex-afm and > > tetex-latex are virtual packages provided with version 2.0.2 by > > tetex-texmf. Why did yum pick up the references to the older 'proper' > > packages? > > (What does 'identical dependency loop exceeded' mean?) > > ok I figured this out. > > Axel, > Your tetex rpm never requires tetex-texmf. Peter has a machine that has > tetex 1.0.7 on it. The dependency is the other way around (tetex-texmf requires tetex). I would create a dependency loop, if I add another Requires: back. > when yum attempts to look for updates note, not upgrades, it looks for > tetex, tetex-afm, tetex-latex b/c that is what peter has installed. > > but since the package tetex never requires tetex-texmf which does > obsolete tetex-afm and tetex-latex then yum never knows to get it - it > just considers tetex-texmf to be some other package. > > Now, if tetex were to require tetex-texmf then it would be fine on the > update. Alternatively you could run: > > yum upgrade > or > yum upgrade tetex* > > I've no idea how apt is computing this out unless it is considering the > obsoletes by default. If it is then I'd be curious what happens if zebra > is installed. I'm pretty sure apt is not doing that, though. I think apt does so in 'dist-upgrade' mode, because I have seen upgrades that happen due to 'renaming' of packages, e.g. obsoleting the old name. I just checked the report again, and it slipped to me that Peter used 'yum update' instead of 'yum upgrade'. 'yum upgrade' does look into obsoletes, while 'yum update' does not. So it is like comparing apt-get upgrade vs dist-upgrade, and yum's behaviour invoked that way is correct (only replace same package with newer versions, no inter-package comparisons). Personally I'd obsolete 'yum update' and 'apt-get upgrade' ;) -- Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/yum/attachments/20030806/27948e53/attachment.bin
